May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[melvinmelvin]

19 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Using expressions like "They may not know it yet but they will want another vote." 

 

The same sentiments expressed by the anti EU membership campaign on the 1975 referendum night, 

 

Is that a justification?

 

[rockingrobin]

11 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

Is that a justification?

 

Is he not just repeating what some Brexiteers claim , that in 1975 they did not know what they voted for.

[billd766]

28 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Is he not just repeating what some Brexiteers claim , that in 1975 they did not know what they voted for.

 

But back in 1975 when I cast my vote there was NO EU, only the EEC which I what I voted to join.

 

Yes I did know what I was voting for, and it most certainly wasn't the EU.

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

But back in 1975 when I cast my vote there was NO EU, only the EEC which I what I voted to join.

 

Yes I did know what I was voting for, and it most certainly wasn't the EU.

Thank you

So as you state , things change, people change their minds

[billd766]

3 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Thank you

So as you state , things change, people change their minds

 

It is true that people change their minds when things change but it took 41 years to allow the UK people to vote on the EEC that morphed into the EU.

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, vogie said:

The LibDems are the most undemocratic party in the land, it proved it at the last election. How can they win the hearts of the electorate when they are going againgst everything they voted for. You only like him grouse because he is saying things 'you' want to hear, the rest of us, yes the majority of the country just want the government to get on with it and get out!

Using expressions like "They may not know it yet but they will want another vote." does not do their cause any good, what an arrogant party they are. "They" do not want another vote.

Cable and the LibDems will be a long time in the wilderness till they get to grips with reality.

The arrogant, condescending Party! Where do I sign?

[rockingrobin]

10 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

It is true that people change their minds when things change but it took 41 years to allow the UK people to vote on the EEC that morphed into the EU.

The evidence does not support that view, 

1974 foreign secetaries requested clarification on the EU , and in Dec 1974 the heads of state agreed to go ahead with plans for monetary union

[vogie]

8 minutes ago, Grouse said:

The arrogant, condescending Party! Where do I sign?

I thought you were the founder member?

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The evidence does not support that view, 

1974 foreign secetaries requested clarification on the EU , and in Dec 1974 the heads of state agreed to go ahead with plans for monetary union

 

I'm hoping that your repeated references to the EU from back in 1975 are just a repeated error, and not an attempt to be disingenuous. There was no European Union back then, but there was a European Economic Community.

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The evidence does not support that view, 

1974 foreign secetaries requested clarification on the EU , and in Dec 1974 the heads of state agreed to go ahead with plans for monetary union

 

And it was, I think, Ted Heath, who later admitted that he'd been economical with the truth to the public about it.

[rockingrobin]

4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

I'm hoping that your repeated references to the EU from back in 1975 are just a repeated error, and not an attempt to be disingenuous. There was no European Union back then, but there was a European Economic Community.

I suggest you do some research and seek what our foreign secreteries  were discussing at the time

[rockingrobin]

3 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

And it was, I think, Ted Heath, who later admitted that he'd been economical with the truth to the public about it.

I would refer you back to the night of the 1975 referendum , when Enoch Powell stated that the stay in campaign had been honest with the public,

[Khun Han]

4 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

I suggest you do some research and seek what our foreign secreteries  were discussing at the time

 

What politicians were discussing at the time in private has no relevence to the fact that we were sold the European Economic Community.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The evidence does not support that view, 

1974 foreign secetaries requested clarification on the EU , and in Dec 1974 the heads of state agreed to go ahead with plans for monetary union

 

What a pity that they didn't bother to tell the UK population BEFORE they voted.

 

7 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

And it was, I think, Ted Heath, who later admitted that he'd been economical with the truth to the public about it.

 

I looked up about the EU on Wikipedia and it had this to say.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

 

The EEC and Euratom were created separately from the ECSC, although they shared the same courts and the Common Assembly. The EEC was headed by Walter Hallstein (Hallstein Commission) and Euratom was headed by Louis Armand (Armand Commission) and then Étienne Hirsch. Euratom was to integrate sectors in nuclear energy while the EEC would develop a customs union among members.^[26][27]

During the 1960s, tensions began to show, with France seeking to limit supranational power. Nevertheless, in 1965 an agreement was reached and on 1 July 1967 the Merger Treaty created a single set of institutions for the three communities, which were collectively referred to as the European Communities.^[28][29]Jean Rey presided over the first merged Commission.

 

In 1973, the Communities were enlarged to include Denmark (including Greenland, which later left the Communities in 1985, following a dispute over fishing rights), Ireland, and the United Kingdom.^[31] Norway had negotiated to join at the same time, but Norwegian voters rejected membership in a referendum. In 1979, the first direct elections to the European Parliament were held.

 

There is a lot more to read if you wish.

 

However see below that the EU was not formally established until 1993, some 18 years AFTER the UK joined the EEC.

 

The European Union was formally established when the Maastricht Treaty—whose main architects were Helmut Kohl and François Mitterrand—came into force on 1 November 1993.[16][38] The treaty also gave the name European Community to the EEC, even if it was referred as such before the treaty. In 1995, Austria, Finland, and Sweden joined the EU.

[Khun Han]

4 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

I would refer you back to the night of the 1975 referendum , when Enoch Powell stated that the stay in campaign had been honest with the public,

 

There's being honest and there's being honest. One could tell one's wife that one is popping out for a few drinks, and not mention that one was also going to pop into a knocking shop at some point in the drinking session. I've already cited a leading source who admitted to such partial honesty wrt Europe.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The evidence does not support that view, 

1974 foreign secetaries requested clarification on the EU , and in Dec 1974 the heads of state agreed to go ahead with plans for monetary union

The overwhelming majority of historical evidence shows that the people of the UK were broadly misled into thinking that the EEC was merely a common market. If the heads of state agreed to go ahead with plans for monetary union in 1974 then that information was not widely released nor approved of by the UK electorate.

 

It was the name and purpose of the EEC that was changed and not the minds of the people. The idea of a free-trading Europe was fine and still is. The formation of the EU and subsequent treaties revealed the real political and federal nature of it all.  

 

[nauseus]

17 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

And it was, I think, Ted Heath, who later admitted that he'd been economical with the truth to the public about it.

Yes it was, as I have said many times.

[Khun Han]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The overwhelming majority of historical evidence shows that the people of the UK were broadly misled into thinking that the EEC was merely a common market. If the heads of state agreed to go ahead with plans for monetary union in 1974 then that information was not widely released nor approved of by the UK electorate.

 

It was the name and purpose of the EEC that was changed and not the minds of the people. The idea of a free-trading Europe was fine and still is. The formation of the EU and subsequent treaties revealed the real political and federal nature of it all.  

 

 

Everybody, including the press, back then, usually referred to it as the Common Market.

[nauseus]

15 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

I would refer you back to the night of the 1975 referendum , when Enoch Powell stated that the stay in campaign had been honest with the public,

I don't think so. Reference needed.

[rockingrobin]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The overwhelming majority of historical evidence shows that the people of the UK were broadly misled into thinking that the EEC was merely a common market. If the heads of state agreed to go ahead with plans for monetary union in 1974 then that information was not widely released nor approved of by the UK electorate.

 

It was the name and purpose of the EEC that was changed and not the minds of the people. The idea of a free-trading Europe was fine and still is. The formation of the EU and subsequent treaties revealed the real political and federal nature of it all.  

 

The people was not misled

The government at the time was elected on a pro european mandate. As a sovereign state the government had the right to conduct any international treaties it wished. The UK parliament had the power to enact any laws , act of parliament, it so desired

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I don't think so. Reference needed.

 

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, rockingrobin said:

The people was not misled

The government at the time was elected on a pro european mandate. As a sovereign state the government had the right to conduct any international treaties it wished. The UK parliament had the power to enact any laws , act of parliament, it so desired

Dead wrong on all counts. Here's an extract from the Labour 1974 election manifesto:

 

THE COMMON MARKET

Our genuine concern for democratic rights is in sharp contrast to the Tory attitude. In the greatest single peacetime decision of this century - Britain's membership of the Common Market - the British people were not given a chance to say whether or not they agreed to the terms accepted by the Tory Government. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals have refused to endorse the rights of our people to make their own decision. Only the Labour Party is committed to the right of the men and women of this country to make this unique decision.

The Labour Government pledges that within twelve months of this election we will give the British people the final say, which will be binding on the Government - through the ballot box - on whether we accept the terms and stay in or reject the terms and come out.

Labour is an internationalist party and Britain is a European nation. But if the Common Market were to mean the creation of a new protectionist bloc, or if British membership threatened to impoverish our working people or to destroy the authority of Parliament, then Labour could not agree.

Within one month of coming into office the Labour Government started the negotiations promised in our February manifesto on the basis set out in that manifesto. It is as yet too early to judge the likely results of the tough negotiations which are taking place. But whatever the outcome in Brussels, the decision will be taken here by the British people.

 

NOT EXACTLY PRO EUROPEAN IS IT?

[vogie]

Britain was taken into europe illegally.

 

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

 

Yes, I remember this. Here it seems that Enoch assumed that the public had received or knew the same information about the political (federal) intent that he knew. But later he says when it is realized that the UK would become a province in a new state he did not believe that this would be assented. He also says later in this interview that the British people still have not been able to credit the implications of being in the common market and that they still think that they will be a nation and be able to govern and legislate and tax for themselves. So why would he say that?

 

The British public in general certainly were not aware that they were renouncing their nation state at the time. I certainly wasn't.

 

[nauseus]

15 minutes ago, vogie said:

Britain was taken into europe illegally.

 

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

Yes, I kept this a while ago. Good and interesting read.

[rockingrobin]

19 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Dead wrong on all counts. Here's an extract from the Labour 1974 election manifesto:

 

THE COMMON MARKET

Our genuine concern for democratic rights is in sharp contrast to the Tory attitude. In the greatest single peacetime decision of this century - Britain's membership of the Common Market - the British people were not given a chance to say whether or not they agreed to the terms accepted by the Tory Government. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals have refused to endorse the rights of our people to make their own decision. Only the Labour Party is committed to the right of the men and women of this country to make this unique decision.

The Labour Government pledges that within twelve months of this election we will give the British people the final say, which will be binding on the Government - through the ballot box - on whether we accept the terms and stay in or reject the terms and come out.

Labour is an internationalist party and Britain is a European nation. But if the Common Market were to mean the creation of a new protectionist bloc, or if British membership threatened to impoverish our working people or to destroy the authority of Parliament, then Labour could not agree.

Within one month of coming into office the Labour Government started the negotiations promised in our February manifesto on the basis set out in that manifesto. It is as yet too early to judge the likely results of the tough negotiations which are taking place. But whatever the outcome in Brussels, the decision will be taken here by the British people.

 

NOT EXACTLY PRO EUROPEAN IS IT?

It was the consevative party that took the UK into to EEC

From their 1970 manifesto

 

If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.

Edited July 24, 2017 by rockingrobin

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

26 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The people was not misled

The government at the time was elected on a pro european mandate. As a sovereign state the government had the right to conduct any international treaties it wished. The UK parliament had the power to enact any laws , act of parliament, it so desired

Any UK government does not constitutionally have the right to give away its sovereignty.   

[rockingrobin]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Yes, I remember this. Here it seems that Enoch assumed that the public had received or knew the same information about the political (federal) intent that he knew. But later he says when it is realized that the UK would become a province in a new state he did not believe that this would be assented. He also says later in this interview that the British people still have not been able to credit the implications of being in the common market and that they still think that they will be a nation and be able to govern and legislate and tax for themselves. So why would he say that?

 

The British public in general certainly were not aware that they were renouncing their nation state at the time. I certainly wasn't.

 

He also states that is not the fault of the pro marketeers

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, rockingrobin said:

It was the consevative party that took the UK into to EEC

From their 1970 manifesto

 

If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.

Well that's all very informative isn't it? Obviously the right terms were not reached and the full truth was not told. Heath openly admitted that.  

[nauseus]

Just now, rockingrobin said:

He also states that is not the fault of the pro marketeers

Yes he does but that's not really the point is it?